Carisbrooke residents worried about the effect a house of multiple occupancy (HMO) may bring to their street have been strongly objecting to a property’s change of use.
Plans have been submitted to the Isle of Wight Council to change the current Castle Lodge guest house, on Castle Road, into a HMO by Two Saints, a homeless not-for-profit service. An existing HMO run by Two Saints in Sandown has featured on Island Echo twice in recent months – in both January 2021 and November 2020.
The 11-bed HMO would be provided in partnership with the council as part of the homeless pathway, to help reduce rough sleeping and prevent homelessness.
Data obtained by the Guardian in a Freedom of Information request found between April and November last year, the first peak of the pandemic, 996 households approached the council concerned about being homeless — 187 of them already classed as homeless or rough sleeping.
Two Saints said in planning documents, individuals who use the HMO will not be placed directly from the street but have gone through an initial process to determine they are ready to live ‘independently and successfully’ and not ‘negatively impact’ the local community. Each tenant will have a support plan to enable them to work towards personal goals of self-development and will stay between 3 to 12 months on average while more long-term onward housing solutions are identified.
However, Castle Road residents are concerned having a HMO on the ‘quiet’ street will bring disturbances, ‘could lead to crime’ and they would ‘fear for the safety of their children’ saying the road is not appropriate for that type of housing and it would be ‘irresponsible’ to put it there due to the demographic of the street. One even said she did not want to ‘needle pick’ her garden before she let her children out to play.
Another objector was concerned the sale of their house, which is next to Castle Lodge, would fall through should the application be approved, with others concerned about property prices.
Another was cautious their attitude was ‘sounded snobby’ but said:
“I am very aware of the less desirable people that frequent Newport and I don’t want them living and visiting opposite my house.”
Almost 30 objections have been submitted, but only 1 Castle Road resident has supported the application so far. He said there was “a danger hateful and inaccurate comments fuelled by a misunderstanding towards homeless people could stop this much-needed facility” and that the homeless are not a criminal class but people who come from all sections of society. He also said there was no evidence house prices have been affected by nearby social housing and urged the council to approve the change of use to ‘do something positive for some of the Island’s most vulnerable people’.
Hampshire Constabulary’s crime and disorder officer said the police force broadly support the HMO but it is conditional on the tenants ‘being at the appropriate stage of recovery to reside there’.
Two Saints has said any type of anti-social behaviour or nuisance in or outside of the property will not be tolerated, with a member of staff present 6 days a week and CCTV installed. They said:
“We believe the property to be a really good opportunity to change lives and enable people to take new steps on their individual journeys.”
the rights of the hard working residents who pay their taxes and abide by the law are once again being trampled on by a bunch of do gooders.
These types of facilities do not belong in quiet residential areas – what is wrong with these people.
How dare do-gooders do good! Clearly the likes of “isle of wighter” are much better at it and should be left alone to get on with their good works.
IF ONLY they did good, but do more harm to the innocents, only seeing their ’cause’ as important, not the thousands of innocents badly effected by their crusade to ‘help’ the few, at huge expense, and proclaim ‘victory’ when one ‘bad penny’ is turned good, YET ignoring the countless amount who grow ever worse, and ignoring the massive cost in money and ‘others’ misery to ‘save the one’.
That is what being a ‘do gooder’ often consists of. I would have more respect IF you took in the worst cases of homeless. But YOU won’t. So no respect from me.
i wont be buying a property in that street that you can be assured of – the prices will come down and the hand wringing lefties will try every trick in the book to justify levelling down the street.
“no way”, please don’t buy a property anywhere near me; the Mail-reading righties will try every trick in the book to force up house prices way beyond their true value.
helen – the true value of a house is its rebuild value – that is what an insurance company will pay, if it was ever destroyed – so many over pay on house insurance as they insure for market value – you never get that in a payout unless specified in the insurance.
almost every house in the UK is overvalued against a rebuild value.
“Another was cautious their attitude was ‘sounded snobby’ but said:”….
Who wrote this and who proof-read it, awful.
Update 15 Feb: 44 comments, nearly all NIMBYs, but several sensible supporters.
Let’s hope the objectors never lose their homes.
What pea-brain down-voted that, for pity’s sake???
IF these people are no risk, then build homes next to, or in the grounds of the top c o u n c i l l o r s orPolice or our MP.
Better still, all these kind by dim souls who see ‘no problem’ with such people, get THEM to take them into their homes and let them ‘see’ why many, not all, but many ‘are’ homeless.
As these charitable people are only so, as they can afford and therefore do, live miles away from those they happily expect others to have to live amongst.
This policy of spreading the misery by spreading problem families around in the vain hope that by doing so, the ne’re do wells will UP their game, is flawed.
exactly dan, exactly
It’s a hard one because there is a need for homeless shelters and what has been in the news only recently with trouble at Calverts and a sandown hotel doesnt help the topic, but at the same time we cannot tar everyone with the same brush.
Like I said I understand the residents concerns as they are genuine concerns, maybe there is other buildings going unused in other locations?
Unfortunately what has ‘been in the news’ recently is only a small part of the everyday anti social behavior of many of these people.
If you were to watch over the course of a day the spitting, urinating, the crude language, the insults to women and young girls, as their drink, drugs, or just naturally vile personas show what many are like, then you too would not wish to have a place anywhere near you.
Same for the shops as these beings often steal, and or bring their foul ways of living or existing in the small local shops where the young staff are afraid to know how to handle such disgusting people.
Shame for genuine nice homeless
I do genuinely see where you are coming from and yes it is a real shame for homeless people that aren’t anything like this.
I have had a fair bit of experience with the theft from shops etc due to work I have been in in the past and again see what you are saying.
Its unfortunate that the homeless that are causing these issues seem to be the ones that are getting lifeline shelter and yet the nice genuine ones seem to be pushed under the carpet.
Genuine cases of homeless people are likely to be as we would all be, quiet, appreciative and would live peaceably and not break moral rules or the counties laws.
These genuine unfortunate people need to be housed in decent places, whilst those who are homeless and vile, need the most basic of shelter, and as suggested perhaps the Lake caravan park, where small groups or individuals could be easily monitored to see if they ‘abuse’ what home (caravan) is given them, and if so, it would only affect ‘them’ not the entire homeless group, and be less costly to us c.tax payers.
So many people hate the homeless and then hate attempts to put a roof other their heads. Can’t win.
no tom – it is not the genuine homeless people despise – it is the groups that you see hanging around towns, getting wasted on special brew, arguing and fighting over drugs or £2. These are the ones that rob each other in these hostels and then are sent back to jail.
they do not care about you or your property – just what they can take – these people would sell their grandmothers for drugs.
no one wants them living near them, ever.
notice how these hostels are never put in the most upmarket parts of town – not noticed one near the mp or councillors homes, didn’t notice any near the royal families residences. Get the point
Are there really upmarket parts of towns over here? The nicest parts seem to be the villages and in the countryside, and no the hostels are not there obviously.
do you see any in spencers road, ryde, do you see any in seaview or perhaps some of the more affluent places in the west wight areas?
I was trying to agree with your point ‘no way’. I feel sorry for townies over here (I’m one of them) because they have to put up with a lot of anti-social aggro and disturbances recently. There’s a lot of beautiful architecture in Isle of Wight towns, which were once upmarket and sought after town houses. But not any more. Who wants to live in a town with people drinking on benches and fighting each other?
At the end of the day there should be zero tolerance (from the council) for anti-social behaviour whether it is a HMO, private landlord renting in an agreement with the council, or house owner. After a set number of ‘strikes’ the owner should be refused permission to continue in its accommodation business. Residents that have to put up with bad stuff when it happens should have better social protections, current arrangements (letters from environmental health, neighbourhood watch) are not sufficient.
If there were better protections there wouldn’t be such strong opposition imo.
I think us islanders know so much more than those in authority do….as we live with What’s really going on the island ….I guess all islanders would despair with the thought of building close to areas……as stated Sandown /Newport/ryde …and we know the drug areas …..the distribution occurs….but the charity’s that get so much from the government to persue there “good causes “ have little concern of local environment
Let’s look at island echoes recent posts …..all drug related and at caravan sites who’s owners know about …,but do little until caught…..
I agree, the charity’s do not care about the local area and the fact is as much I believe these places are needed areas need to be considered as there are people with serious addictions to drugs and alcohol and need to be supervised at all times.
There has to be other disused buildings on the Island that are better placed for this.
exactly – people research an area, look at schools, links to transport, shops amenities etc and then consider a purchase of a property with a view to potentially living there for at least a couple of decades – they do not expect their decisions to be ruined and then put into a negative equity situation, because some do gooder wants to ruin the area by putting a doss house in it.
The homeless should be housed at the Sandown Fairway caravan park. This site is perfect as individuals could have a caravan each or an entire family. Then the vile would not be living under the same roof as the decent.
An inspection once a month could be held and anyone who had ruined their home would be given the most basic van to live in.
This seems a bit shortsighted. As we will probably be limited to staycations this summer, Guest Houses, such as this one, will become gold mines, as there are so few of them left.
I can speak from experience in that I had a 6 month stay in a HMO when my world broke apart and I went off the rails.
it was a great place to be what with the abundance of alcohol, drugs and free sex it really helped me blot out the realities of life for a while. I actually felt sorry for the neighbours. The two “wardens” literally just turned a blind eye to everything that went on (wouldn’t want to blot their career)